Crush Liberalism

Thursday, November 30, 2006

Dems for the 9/11 panel recommendations, before they were against them

Isn't it customary for politicians to break promises only after they get into office? From the Washington comPost:

It was a solemn pledge, repeated by Democratic leaders and candidates over and over: If elected to the majority in Congress, Democrats would implement all of the recommendations of the bipartisan commission that examined the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

But with control of Congress now secured, Democratic leaders have decided for now against implementing the one measure that would affect them most directly: a wholesale reorganization of Congress to improve oversight and funding of the nation's intelligence agencies. Instead, Democratic leaders may create a panel to look at the issue and produce recommendations, according to congressional aides and lawmakers.

Because plans for implementing the commission's recommendations are still fluid, Democratic officials would not speak for the record. But aides on the House and Senate appropriations, armed services and intelligence committees confirmed this week that a reorganization of Congress would not be part of the package of homeland-security changes up for passage in the "first 100 hours" of the Democratic Congress.

"I don't think that suggestion is going anywhere," said Rep. C.W. Bill Young (R-Fla.), the chairman of the Appropriations defense subcommittee and a close ally of the incoming subcommittee chairman, Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.). "That is not going to be their party position."

It may seem like a minor matter, but members of the commission say Congress's failure to change itself is anything but inconsequential. In 2004, the commission urged Congress to grant the House and Senate intelligence committees the power not only to oversee the nation's intelligence agencies but also to fund them and shape intelligence policy. The intelligence committees' gains would come at the expense of the armed services committees and the appropriations panels' defense subcommittees. Powerful lawmakers on those panels would have to give up prized legislative turf.

But the commission was unequivocal about the need.

"Of all our recommendations, strengthening congressional oversight may be among the most difficult and important," the panel wrote. "So long as oversight is governed by current congressional rules and resolutions, we believe the American people will not get the security they want and need."

If my memory serves me well, I recall hearing how Dubya's failure to fully implement the suggestions of the 9/11 Commission would make America "less safe and secure"...don't you? For a group of people who got elected on not "staying the course", it sure looks like the same old same old to me.

I can be dismissed as a partisan hack, right? Perhaps...but don't make the same assumptions about others:

Now Democrats are balking, just as Republicans did before them.

The decision will almost certainly anger commission members, as well as families of victims of the Sept. 11 attacks, many of whom have pressed hard for implementation of the recommendations.

"The Democrats pledged to implement all the remaining 9/11 reforms, not some of them," said former representative Timothy J. Roemer (D-Ind.), who served on the commission.

Carie Lemack, whose mother was in one of the jets that hit the World Trade Center, echoed that sentiment: "It wasn't a Chinese takeout menu, the 41 recommendations. You have to do all of them."

Lemme guess: Roemer is a DINO and Lemack lacks the authenticity of the "Jersey Girls", huh?

Speaker-to-be Botox: "There's no al Qaeda in Iraq"

Nice to know that the impending second-in-line for the presidency has such a firm grasp on the nature of the enemy. Fortunately for the left, the MSM is running interference for the San Francisco Treat. From Newsbusters:

Asked by a reporter about how “President Bush today blamed the surge of violence in Iraq on al Qaeda,” incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi responded with a disjointed answer about how “the 9/11 Commission dismissed that notion a long time ago and I feel sad that the President is resorting to it again." Though al-Qaeda is clearly in Iraq and responsible for deadly bombings, and the 9/11 Commission conclusion was about links before September 11th, on Tuesday's NBC Nightly News reporter David Gregory treated Pelosi's off-base retort as credible and relevant. Without suggesting any miscue by her, Gregory segued to Pelosi's soundbite with a bewildering set up of his own about how “incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi disagreed, warning that such rhetoric about al Qaeda will make it harder for Democrats to work with the White House."

On FNC's Special Report with Brit Hume, after panelist Mara Liasson characterized Pelosi as “confused” and Morton Kondracke suggested she was just “mixed up,” Fred Barnes maintained that “she clearly screwed up here. The question was absolutely clear. 'President Bush today blamed the surge in violence in Iraq.'” Barnes argued the media wouldn't let a Republican get away with such a flub, telling Kondrake: “If some Republican had done this, if Bush had done this at a press conference, if Newt Gingrich had said it, if John Boehner had said it, if Roy Blunt had said it, you'd have been all over it. It would be inexcusable."

Neither ABC's World News or the CBS Evening News played the Pelosi soundbite.

I could have sworn I've heard and seen references to "Al Qaeda in Iraq" before! I must have been hitting the Long Island Iced Teas with Ted Kennedy.

To summarize: When Bush says "misunderestimated", he's an idiot. When Pelosi says "There's no al Qaeda in Iraq and the 9/11 Commission backs me on that", she "misspoke." Nope, no liberal media bias!

Wednesday, November 29, 2006

Frist out for '08 run

Outgoing Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., has decided not to run for President in 2008.

In a written statement released today, Frist says, "In the Bible, God tells us for everything there is a season, and for me, for now, this season of being an elected official has come to a close. I do not intend to run for president in 2008."...In his written statment, Frist says, "I will take a sabbatical from public life. At this point a return to private life will allow me to return to my professional roots as a healer and to refocus my creative energies on innovative solutions to seemingly insurmountable challenges Americans face."

"Healer"? As a doctor, sure. But as a politician, I'd say that what he did to his party violates the Hippocratic Oath he took as a physician to "first do no harm."

Leading the charge for the president's amnesty plan for lawbreaking immigrants, trying to sneak an anti-online gambling bill into a port security bill, suggesting we should be willing to have an open dialogue with only the "moderate" Taliban and invite them into the new Afghan government...in short, ticking off enough of the base to keep them home (or switch them to the dark side) on Nov. 7. All that stuff doesn't seem to qualify as "doing no harm" to his party, does it?

Well, at least he's a man of principle...or, practicality. Either way, he won't be missed much.

Bush and Webb not buddies

Sometimes, people just make things harder than they have to be. Simple questions deserve simple answers, but some folks just can't figure it out. From The Hill:

President Bush has pledged to work with the new Democratic majorities in Congress, but he has already gotten off on the wrong foot with Jim Webb, whose surprise victory over Sen. George Allen (R-Va.) tipped the Senate to the Democrats.

Webb, a decorated former Marine officer, hammered Allen and Bush over the unpopular war in Iraq while wearing his son’s old combat boots on the campaign trail. It seems the president may have some lingering resentment.

At a private reception held at the White House with newly elected lawmakers shortly after the election, Bush asked Webb how his son, a Marine lance corporal serving in Iraq, was doing.

Webb responded that he really wanted to see his son brought back home, said a person who heard about the exchange from Webb.

“I didn’t ask you that, I asked how he’s doing,” Bush retorted, according to the source.

Webb confessed that he was so angered by this that he was tempted to slug the commander-in-chief, reported the source, but of course didn’t. It’s safe to say, however, that Bush and Webb won’t be taking any overseas trips together anytime soon.

I suppose replying with "Just fine, thanks" or "Not too well...he needs body armor, you bastard" would have been too much? No, replying with an answer to a question that wasn't asked must have been what the depraved citizens of VA had in mind when they sent that pervert to DC.

I guess Webb might have been more "touched" moved had Bush asked him this question instead:

"So, Jimmy Boy...has that son of yours fellated any little Iraqi boys? I know how that kinda interest runs in the family." Alas, Dubya just isn't that diplomatic, is he?

Tuesday, November 28, 2006

Who cares? Hint: not liberals!

Excellent analysis by Thomas Sowell, smashing the left's reflexive crutch that they are inherently the "compassionate" ones:

More frightening than any particular beliefs or policies is an utter lack of any sense of a need to test those beliefs and policies against hard evidence. Mistakes can be corrected by those who pay attention to facts but dogmatism will not be corrected by those who are wedded to a vision.

One of the most pervasive political visions of our time is the vision of liberals as compassionate and conservatives as less caring. It is liberals who advocate "forgiveness" of loans to Third World countries, a "living wage" for the poor and a "safety net" for all.

But these are all government policies -- not individual acts of compassion -- and the actual empirical consequences of such policies are of remarkably little interest to those who advocate them. Depending on what those consequences are, there may be good reasons to oppose them, so being for or against these policies may tell us nothing about who is compassionate or caring and who is not.

To translate "the actual empirical consequences of such policies are of remarkably little interest to those who advocate them": Judge me by my words, not by my deeds. I care, dammit...to hell with facts! Continuing:

A new book, titled "Who Really Cares" by Arthur C. Brooks examines the actual behavior of liberals and conservatives when it comes to donating their own time, money, or blood for the benefit of others. It is remarkable that beliefs on this subject should have become conventional, if not set in concrete, for decades before anyone bothered to check these beliefs against facts.

What are those facts?

People who identify themselves as conservatives donate money to charity more often than people who identify themselves as liberals. They donate more money and a higher percentage of their incomes.

It is not that conservatives have more money. Liberal families average 6 percent higher incomes than conservative families.

You may recall a flap during the 2000 election campaign when the fact came out that Al Gore donated a smaller percentage of his income to charity than the national average. That was perfectly consistent with his liberalism.

So is the fact that most of the states that voted for John Kerry during the 2004 election donated a lower percentage of their incomes to charity than the states that voted for George W. Bush.

Actually, Gore donated about $350, about 0.002% of his income, compared to that evil Cheney who donated about $7 million, or about 78% of his income. But I digress. Skipping ahead a bit...:

The two visions are not completely symmetrical, however. For at least two centuries, the vision of the left has included a belief that those with that vision are morally superior, more caring and more compassionate.

While both sides argue that their opponents are mistaken, those on the left have declared their opponents to be not merely in error but morally flawed as well. So the idea that liberals are more caring and compassionate goes with the territory, whether or not it fits the facts.

That's exactly why I've grown intolerant of the left in general, albeit quite tolerant of a number of decent liberals in particular. In the early days of forming my political ideology, I simply assumed that liberals were misguided folks who were not immoral or amoral...just wrong in their approaches to identifying and solving problems. I had assumed that by merely disagreeing with them, I wouldn't be lumped into a category of "bigot" or "homophobe" or "sexist" or (insert other emtionally-charged and factually-absent pejorative here). I assumed incorrectly, for I was so labeled.

Disagreeing with a liberal automatically made a liberal view me through such a perverted prism. I mean, isn't it possible that the right and the left have American interests at heart and simply disagree on how to accomplish things? To the left, the answer was always "No, it's not possible. If you disagree with us, you're evil." One can hardly blame me for becoming so jaded against an ideology that has precious little use for facts or different ideas; an ideology that favors feelings over thinking; an ideology that seems, at times, psychotically intent on national self-destruction; and an ideology that is steeped so deeply in hypocrisy when it comes to "tolerance" and "diversity" yet cannot properly stomach either.

In closing:

Those on the left proclaimed their moral superiority in the 18th century and they continue to proclaim it in the 21st century. What is remarkable is how long it took for anyone to put that belief to the test -- and how completely it failed that test.

The two visions are different in another way. The vision of the left exalts the young especially as idealists while the more conservative vision warns against the narrowness and shallowness of the inexperienced. This study found young liberals to make the least charitable contributions of all, whether in money, time or blood. Idealism in words is not idealism in deeds.

Perhaps liberals don't give to charity as much as conservatives do because liberals feel that it is the proper role of the federal government to replace charities in terms of functional role in society. To be sure, I personally know a few liberals (on this blog and beyond) who, I am confident, genuinely care about their fellow man.

Where these folks and I part company is on how best to help, even if we share the same compassion for people. That they entrust government while I entrust people should not make me less compassionate than they; however, in the eyes of the vast majority of liberals, I must indeed be less moral.

Monday, November 27, 2006

Halp us, Charlee Wrangle! We iz stuk N irak!

Not content to let Jean-Francois Heinz-Kerry (who is rumored to have served in Vietnam) have all the fun insulting the troops' intelligence, the Harlem Harlot Charlie "Reinstitute the Draft" Rangel wasn't going to let Lurch bogart the headlines in military slander.

Rangel responded thusly when asked if he believed the Heritage Foundation study that showed that the military is smarter than Sen. Ketchup said they were (via FNC):

Of course not. I want to make it abundantly clear: if there’s anyone who believes that these youngsters want to fight, as the Pentagon and some generals have said, you can just forget about it. No young, bright individual wants to fight just because of a bonus and just because of educational benefits. And most all of them come from communities of very, very high unemployment. If a young fella has an option of having a decent career or joining the army to fight in Iraq, you can bet your life that he would not be in Iraq.

There you have it. Joining the armed forces isn't a "decent career", my friends. At least, that what Dems like Kerry and Rangel are saying. When they're not accused of being babykillers and "Jengiss Khan" and "Pol Pot", they're being called "idiots" by party heavyweights and "loathed" by a certain former fellated president.

Dems: "We won't be liberal!"

Three Democratic congressmen who are about to take important leadership posts said on Sunday they plan to pass popular legislation blocked by Republicans but would refrain from pushing some of the most controversial elements on the liberal agenda.

The three, appearing on Fox News Sunday, are among the most liberal Democrats who will take over key committee chairmanships when Democrats regain control of the House of Representatives in January.

In other words, the most liberal members will be chairmen (or, in the case of Frank, chairwomen) of committees and Speaker of the House...but no, nothing to worry about when it comes to the liberal agenda! Continuing:

Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, who will take over the U.S. House of Representatives committee that covers banking and other financial institutions, mentioned raising the minimum wage, providing cheaper drug coverage for the elderly and providing more affordable housing and help with college tuition as the focus of Democratic legislation.

Expanding the size of the federal government further? Nope, that's "moderate", huh? In fairness, the GOP helped balloon the size of government over the last six years; however, continuing the increase is as "moderate" as Ted Kennedy's drinking capacity.

Proving my frequent assertion that Dems can't, as a whole, be open about their liberalism, they are at least paying lip service to not trying anything stupid(er):

Asked about his opposition to the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy toward gay service men and women, Frank, one of the few openly gay members of the House, said he would fight discrimination but that issue was "not what we're going to begin with."

"Democrats like winning elections," said Rep. John Dingell of Michigan, the incoming chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee and the longest serving member of the House.

"We want to win elections and we're going to do our best to do so," he said. "This doesn't mean to get into any extreme positions on any matter. We'll do what makes good sense."

For those of you on the left who are delusional enough to think that the Dems won this year because of the electorate's overnight embracing of leftist "values", it must be annoying to see your party pledging to abandon said "values" for what they believe to be electoral expediency.

Hurricane forecasts WAY off

I won't beat this dead horse much longer, but..."Damn that global 'warming'!" From TBO:

With cataclysmic predictions that hurricanes would swarm from the tropics like termites, no one thought 2006 would be the most tranquil season in a decade.

Barring a last-second surprise from the tropics, the season will end Thursday with nine named storms, and only five of those hurricanes. This year is the first season since 1997 that only one storm nudged its way into the Gulf of Mexico.

Prior to hurricane season this year, we were told by "experts" that last year's 25+ named storms might actually get surpassed this year. At what point do we stop calling them "experts" and paying them for being horribly wrong?

Friday, November 24, 2006

UPDATE: A Floridian "Damn that global warming" update

UPDATE (11/24/2006 - 7:50 A.M. EST):Ice caps not melting, but are getting thicker. Link here. Maybe the "New Ice Age" eco-fear of the 1970's was right! And to think, I've been stocking up on SPF 3,000 for nothing! Not that any of this will phase the "faith-based junk science" crowd.

It's cold here this morning in Jacksonville. However, at least we didn't get snow like Orlando and Daytona got. From WFTV:

Snow flurries were reported in Seminole, Orange, and Volusia Counties Tuesday night. We even saw some snow at Channel 9's Orlando studios.

The last time it snowed in Central Florida was reportedly January 24, 2003. Before that, it hadn't snowed since 1989.

A blast of cold air is moving into the state this week, state emergency officials said.

Wind chills may drop into the 20s in parts of north Florida and high temperatures may only reach the 60s as far south as the Keys on Wednesday, state meteorologist Ben Nelson said.

Uncharacteristic cold? Must be evidence of global "warming", huh?

Wait a minute! I forgot that during this time of year, the global "warming" Chicken Littles cluck the term "climate change" in place of "global 'warming'", since we normal Americans tend to laugh at people who tell us how the planet is frying...at the precise moment that Florida is getting snow.

Wednesday, November 22, 2006

Beaming with pride and political incorrectness, I wish you a Happy Thanksgiving!

One thing of which to be thankful: not living in San Fran-istan. From Moonbattery:

San Francisco's Bill Morgan is among the schoolteachers who have replaced traditional celebrations of Thanksgiving with what the America-loathing propagandists at AP are pleased to call a "more realistic look at the complex relationship between Indians and white settlers." On the taxpayer's dime, he walks into his third-grade class wearing a pilgrim hat made out of black construction paper and snatches away the kids' belongings, announcing that they now belong to him because he "discovered" them.

Get it? Our ancestors didn't settle America, they stole it — or at least that's what children are being taught by a generation of warped moonbats who use our educational system to train children to hate their own country....Needless to say, no kids will be learning that prior to European settlement, the Americas were populated by stone-age savages who had not even advanced to the level of using wheels or riding animals, and who were known to indulge in ritual torture, cannibalism, and human sacrifice. When civilization arrived, the natives frequently raided settlements, burning them and abducting women and children, whom they enslaved. I'm glad to leave all this out of third-graders' Thanksgivings, if the moonbats could just drop the "we stole this country" crapola.

What's galling (beyond the obvious) is that the AP abandons all pretense for objectivity and calls the teacher's lesson in moonbattery a "more realistic look at the complex relationship between Indians and white settlers." Realistic, huh? Read "Of Plymouth Plantation" by William Bradford, who was (unlike the moonbat educrat in San Fran-istan) actually there, for a "more realistic" look.

Look, my friends, I won't waste any more time than I already have in raising awareness of that which you already know: the left is continuing its assault on American traditions, culture, norms, and values. I, for one, will take no part in such a self-hating anti-American exercise. So, on behalf of the Crush Liberalism Objective World News Service (CLOWNS), I wish you and yours a Happy Thanksgiving!

Tuesday, November 21, 2006

Michigan to voters: "Screw you! Discrimination will continue!"

Michigan has been drifting to the left over the last several years. Indeed, in this year's election, Michigan re-elected unpopular Democrat politicians in governor Jennie Granholm and Senator Debbie Stabenow. However, despite the left-of-center leanings of the Michigan electorate, these same voters who were lauded nationally by the left for being smart enough to turn away "failed Republican policies" are now having their will ignored and their intelligence impugned. Observe:

Michigan voters struck a blow for equality this month, when 58% of them approved an amendment to the state constitution banning racial discrimination in public universities and contracting. Almost identical measures have previously passed by similar majorities in California and Washington state. That means the original meaning of the 1964 Civil Rights Act--that racial discrimination of any kind is illegal--has won reaffirmation in three liberal states, none of which have voted for a Republican for president since 1988. Supporters now plan to carry the fight to other states.

From the outraged cries of affirmative action diehards, you would think the dark night of fascism was descending with the passage of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative. Mary Sue Coleman is president of the University of Michigan, which has already spent millions of taxpayers' dollars defending its racial preferences in courts. She addressed what Tom Bray of the Detroit News called "a howling mob of hundreds of student and faculty protestors" last week. "Diversity matters at Michigan," she declared. "It matters today, and it will matter tomorrow." Echoes of George Wallace, who in 1963 declared from the steps of Alabama's Capitol: "I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever."

Ms. Coleman isn't the only Michigan official to employ Wallace-style rhetoric against MCRI. Detroit's Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick told a fundraiser last April that the measure would usher in an era of racial prejudice. "Bring it on!" he bellowed. "We will affirm to the world that affirmative action will be here today, it will be here tomorrow, and there will be affirmative action in the state forever."

Another leader in Michigan's massive resistance is Karen Moss, the executive director of the state ACLU. "I do think it's necessary for the courts to slow this thing down and . . . interpret some of the language," she told the Washington Post. That "thing" is an amendment that simply states: "The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting." As the blog Discriminations.us notes, "What part of that language does the ACLU find vague or unclear and in need of "interpretation'?"

The ACLU, mirroring the left's perverted mentality 99.9% of the time, sums up the leftards' viewpoint with that simple statement that the courts need to "slow this thing down." That viewpoint is simple: the electorate cannot be trusted, but unelected judicial activists can be.

Unlike George Wallace, today's race-hustling pimps are not reacting against rulings by unelected judges, but instead are reacting against the will of Michigan voters who pay the salaries of Coleman and Kilpatrick. The same electorate who voted Dem en masse across the state rejected the left's pet discrimination policies by amending the state constitution...and the vote wasn't that close. As Fund points out, "CNN exit poll of 1,955 Michigan voters showed that the measure had widespread appeal across many demographic groups. A majority of both sexes voted for MCRI, as did 40% of self-described liberals and Democrats. Among nonwhite voters, 30% of men and 18% of women voted 'yes.'"

In the warped elitist minds of folks like Coleman and Kilpatrick, the fact that the anti-discrimination demand originated from and was confirmed by the citizenry makes it even more suspect and difficult to swallow.

Monday, November 20, 2006

UPDATED: Rangel to reinstate draft?

Americans would have to sign up for a new military draft after turning 18 if the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee has his way.

Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., said Sunday he sees his idea as a way to deter politicians from launching wars and to bolster U.S. troop levels insufficient to cover potential future action in Iran, North Korea and Iraq.

"There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way," Rangel said.

Rangel, a veteran of the Korean War who has unsuccessfully sponsored legislation on conscription in the past, said he will propose a measure early next year.

In 2003, he proposed a measure covering people age 18 to 26. This year, he offered a plan to mandate military service for men and women between age 18 and 42; it went nowhere in the Republican-led Congress.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the left oppose the draft during the Vietnam era? Considering that the left refers to Iraq as "Bush's Vietnam", I find it curious that they would now support something they once opposed so vehemently.

To be fair, I don't know if a majority of leftists feel that way (though a sizeable minority of them do):

Repeated polls have shown that about seven in 10 Americans oppose reinstatement of the draft and officials say they do not expect to restart conscription.

So Rangel, never having to fear electoral defeat, thinks that his party will benefit by pursuing an agenda that repulses 70% of America? If there are many more stupid attempts at unpopular legislation like this, my prediction that the House Dems will rule for more than two years may be incorrect.

By the way, "Gang of 14" turncoat Lindsey Graham (RINO-SC) is on board with Rangel here:

Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who is a colonel in the U.S. Air Force Standby Reserve, said he agreed that the U.S. does not have enough people in the military.

"I think we can do this with an all-voluntary service, all-voluntary Army, Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy. And if we can't, then we'll look for some other option," said Graham, who is assigned as a reserve judge to the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals....Graham said he believes the all-voluntary military "represents the country pretty well in terms of ethnic makeup, economic background."

What, are we now measuring success of our armed forces in terms of affirmative action? Un-freakin'-believable.

UPDATE (11/20/06 - 01:49 p.m. EST): As Texas Rainmaker observes, wasn't it the left who propogated fears that if Bush were re-elected in 2004, that Bush (and not House Democrats) would reinstate the draft? In light of Rangel's idea, it's time to call out these lying, two-faced, hypocritical shameless sonsabitches on their dishonesty.

Friday, November 17, 2006

Kos kooks: "Damn that Diebold...or, uh, somebody!"

The moonbats over at Kos Kook Central are frothing over the diabolical Diebold electronic voting machine company having screwed one of their own out of yet "another" electoral win! From Ace:

in Florida, an epic battle is brewing over the electronic Diebold voting machines that ate 18,000 votes for Democrat Christine Jennings in FL-13 and cost her the election.

Not only is an expensive recount in the cards, but campaign and DCCC lawyers are flocking down, demanding the state freeze the machines for inspection.

These are the opening salvos in what will be the battle to end Diebold....To put it bluntly, to anyone who has ever complained about Diebold, this is your chance to put your money where your mouth is. No more talk needed. No more advocacy needed. This is a real-world, legal frontal assault on those electronic voting machines.

If we win this battle, you'll be able to kiss Diebold goodbye.

I've got it: Diebold is eeeeevil because its CEO once donated to Bush (even though that CEO has been gone a while now). So down with Diebold, right?

Right. There's just one slight problem with the Kosnuts' rant: the machines in FL-13 weren't made by the evil Diebold. Nope, they were made by a company called ES&S. So, the Kostards issued a correction...sorta:

Update II: Machines in FL-13 were made by ES&S. Same difference.

Same difference? As Ace wryly observes:

Damn that Diebold for stealing our--

Huh?

Okay, damn ES&S. Same difference. Damn somebody.

Look, I don't care if the machines were f#%$ing made on planet Vulcan and are accurate to the nth order thanks to quantum computing-- we still won, and Diebold is still trying to screw with us!!!

What a bunch of dumb#sses! Not only are they crazy, but they're stupid, too. Dangerous combo, my friends.

Well, if you fine folks will excuse me, I'm heading to lunch. I'm craving a Burger King Bic Mac. What? A Big Mac is made at McDonalds? Well, same difference!

File this under "Well, duh!": Santorum says "no" to White House run

Don't expect to see Sen. Rick Santorum's name on the 2008 presidential ballot.

"Absolutely, positively not. Absolutely not," Santorum said yesterday on The Michael Smerconish Show on WPHT-AM (1210). "My wife would throw me out of the house if I do anything in '08."

Even though he lost his Senate seat last week by 18 points to Democrat Bob Casey Jr., some supporters hoped he would still fill the social conservative niche on the Republican ticket.

William J. Bennett, the former U.S. secretary of education and national drug czar, had predicted a "draft Rick Santorum" movement, citing a lack of conservatism on the part of the current GOP front-runners, Sen. John McCain of Arizona and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

Ah, so Santorum should be enticed into running for president because he's more conservative than McCain and Rudy? That may be true, but I noticed that unlike McCain and Rudy, Santorum has tasted recent (and substantial) political defeat.

I wondered the same thing that the once-respected Larry Sabato pondered: How exactly does a man that lost his own state, especially by a crushing 18%, in a Senate race exude an aura of electability? Were the GOP base dumb enough to nominate Santorum in '08, they could immediately consider the already-bluish PA "out of play." Truth be told, folks, I have to wonder how Santorum ever won in prior PA races in the first place.

Thursday, November 16, 2006

"Breck Girl" says that Wal-Mart is evil...except for buying his PS/3

Right now, devout gamers across America are camping outside of Best Buys, Circuit Citys, and Wal-Marts to be one of the very first to scoop up the soon-to-be-released Sony Playstation 3. It's touted to be the mother of all gaming systems, or at least until Nintendo or Sega can come out with something better next year.

Anywho, PS/3-mania can reach across all walks of life, including ambulance chasers who wanted to litigate their way to the presidency & vice-presidency. Yes, John Edwards (aka the "Breck Girl") is sending his help to score him a new PS/3 from Sam Walton's evil blue empire...Wal-Mart! From Mary Katharine Ham:

BENTONVILLE, Ark. – Nov. 16, 2006 – Just like the millions of Americans who turn to their neighborhood Wal-Mart for their holiday shopping needs, Wal-Mart announced today that former Sen. John Edwards is seeking to be one of the first to get a Sony PlayStation3, one of the most coveted holiday gift items this Christmas season.

Yesterday, a staff person for former Sen. Edwards contacted a Wal-Mart electronics manager in Raleigh, North Carolina to obtain a Sony PlayStation3 on behalf of the Senator's family. Later that night, Sen. Edwards reportedly re-told a homespun story to participants of a United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union-sponsored call about how his son had chided a fellow student for purchasing shoes at Wal-Mart.

Don't buy shoes, Little Johnny...get the PS/3 instead! You have any ideas what those things can command on eBay? By the way, Ham has pictures of Breck Girl at the anti-America's Store union rallies.

Apparently, an intense gaming desire can overcome purported deeply held beliefs that one of America's largest private employers (and shopping destination to roughly 68% of Americans, including those red-state "ham and eggers" that Edwards conned once (but not twice) into voting for him) is a corporofascist entity! Principle-schminciple...the man needs to get his game on!

The left learns to love the Dow again

During the Clinton years, we were told that Bubba was doing a bang-up (no pun intended) job at managing the economy because the Dow had broken what were then-record highs.

During the Bush administration, we were told that Bush was doing a crappy job at managing the economy and that the Dow record highs were somehow indicative of "evil corporate profiteering", despite that the Dow had plummeted immediately after 9/11/01 to about 6,000 (and is now over twice that high).

Now that Democrats have been elected to control both houses of Congress, the non-sequitirs and inconsistencies are mindboggling: the Dow is continuing its record highs, which is somehow proof that the Dow likes Democrats better.

So let me see if I understand this right:

During a Democratic presidential administration with a Republican Congress, the Dow soared to record highs;

During a Republican presidential administration with a Republican Congress, the Dow soared to record highs;

During a Republican presidential administration with a Democratic Congress-in-waiting, the Dow is continuing to soar to record highs.

Yep, makes perfect sense. Wall Street must love the Dems, if you can just ignore that pesky second bullet point above. Hell, and all along I thought the economy in general (and Dow in particular) didn't give a steaming hunk of possum loaf who was in the Oval Office or the Capitol...silly me!

Wednesday, November 15, 2006

Trent Lott gets his old job back (sorta), plus a CLOWNS exclusive

Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi, who was driven from the Republican leadership four years ago after he made ill-considered remarks at a birthday party for Strom Thurmond, returned to the Senate’s top ranks today, winning election as minority whip in the next session by a single vote.

Mr. Lott won the post over Senator Lamar Alexander, who had predicted on Tuesday that he had enough support to win. The 49 Republicans who will make up the new Senate chose Mr. Lott by a vote of 25 to 24.

Mr. Lott, who turned 65 on Oct. 9, will be second in command to Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, who was unanimously elected to be minority leader in the next Senate. Mr. McConnell had been the party whip while Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee was party leader. Mr. Frist is retiring from the Senate.

Senator Lott’s return to leadership may be a reflection of the Republicans’ sudden discomfort at being in the minority, and their desire to have an effective tactician as they try to outmaneuver Democrats and work to regain the majority in the elections two years from now.

"I'm more than excited about resuming leadership within the party. What made me change my mind and decide to get back into the swing of things? I would say that it was nothing more than the shining example provided by my colleague from Connecticut, the esteemed Chris Dodd.

See, back in early 2002, everyone had a cow over my effusing of praise on the since-croaked Strom Thurmond. Presumably because Strom had once been a segregationist bigot, I guess. Anywho, just two short years after my purported 'faux pas', ol' Chris Dodd decided to put political differences aside and help a dear friend out in a rare display of bipartisan sportsmanship: he gushed praise upon Senator Robert "Sheets" Byrd (KKK-WV)!

Yes, sir! Chris said that Sheets "would have been a great senator at any moment....you would have been right at the founding of this country, right during the Civil War....I can't think of a single moment in this nation's 220+ year history where you would not have been a valuable asset to this country." I'm guessing that Sheets' tour of duty with the WV Klan falls within that "single moment in this nation's 220+ year history" timeline, right?

I can even thrown in an 'Attagirl!' to my esteemed colleague from NY, Her Highness Hillary, for similarly flattering Sheets, too. But you get the point, right? Now that Chris and Hill have made statements that were identical to mine in context and in target (not totally true, since Strom was never in the Klan), and both of them have weathered the media storm that was certain to be as intense as it was when I praised Strom, they have effectively demonstrated that the MSM will be fair henceforth on such matters...and I am certain I won't be asked ever again about my 'Strom comments'! Thanks, my friends!

Dem loser trusts polls over actual results

It just wouldn't be an election cycle without some whiny #ss liberal Democrat screaming "Vote fraud!", now would it? From U.S. Newswire:

Clint Curtis, Democratic Party Candidate for Florida's 24th Congressional District, announced that he will not concede defeat in his race to unseat Rep. Tom Feeney (news, bio, voting record) "until every vote is actually counted." He is considering mounting a legal challenge to the election results.

"In this election, the results did not match the Zogby pre- election poll, our internal VoteNow2006.net polling, or our exit polling," Curtis said. "These anomalies need to be investigated and cleared up, not just in my race but for every district where the count just doesn't add up." Curtis says he has informed the Supervisor of Elections office in all four counties in FL-24 that he is considering a challenge.

Screw the results, Zogby said we would win! Continuing:

Curtis continued, "The right to vote and to have that vote counted accurately is the very foundation of our democracy, and I owe it to the voters in my district and the state of Florida to continue to push for accurate, honest elections.

Or, at least those that aren't overseas military ballots, right? Continuing:

As an internationally recognized election integrity advocate, Curtis has worked tirelessly for over five years to correct issues in America's broken election system. As a congressional candidate, Curtis now has the legal standing to pursue an investigation into the anomalies.

Curtis plans to examine precinct numbers and personally contact voters, to "tie the voter to the vote." "This will either confirm the official results or indicate discrepancies," he said.

So much for privacy rights, huh? I'd hate to think that a politician would be bugging me to see if I voted for him or not. In closing:

..."I can accept that the citizens across the state of Florida were out of step with the rest of the country, as long as we know that this election truly reflects their intent." Curtis said.

"I can accept that the citizens across the state of Florida were out of step with the rest of the country?" Obviously you can't, especially since you lost convincingly, 58% - 42% (didn't see that in the U.S. Newswire story, did you?)! Additionally, factoring in that Charlie Crist won the governor's race by a convincing 7%, and that Tom Feeney is well-liked in his district that Curtis won't concede, it's not exactly stretching the imagination to see how Curtis was soundly defeated.

What is it with Dems being pisspoor losers? I mean, they won big on Election Night this year, and they still act like asses with election results. By contrast, George Allen didn't request a recount that he was legally allowed to request, nor did Conrad Burns in Montana. Nor did John Ashcroft in 2000 when he lost to Mel Carnahan, who had died in a plane crash before the election but had his wife run in his place...despite MO law that said that whomever the certified winner was HAD to be a LIVING RESIDENT of MO, which Mel Carnahan was not. No, Ashcroft accepted the will of the people and graciously conceded and asked the state GOP not to pursue the matter.

"I will look at the possibilities, but I ... haven't really had the time to talk to people about it," Clinton told a breakfast gathering hosted by the Association for a Better New York. "It's been a busy election season that worked out well, so I will think about it. I'm open to thoughts."...She also said Democrats would focus on improving the quality and affordability of health care - a touchy matter for the former first lady, who in 1993 led her husband's calamitous attempt to overhaul the nation's health care system (and saw said attempt squashed by a then-Democratic majority...in other words, it sucked so badly even her own party couldn't go along with it! - Ed.). The failure of that effort helped Republicans win control of both the Senate and House the following year.

"Health care is coming back," Clinton warned, adding, "It may be a bad dream for some."

Translation: "I am going to get my socialist utopia economy-wrecker of a health plan foisted on you peons, and by (insert deity du jour here), you idiots (clarification: she doesn't just mean the soldiers like Kerry did) are going to like it!" A rare glimpse of honesty from Her Highness, wouldn't you say?

"Rationalizing losing"

James Taranto makes a point that struck me when I read Mike Allen's post-mortem on the election referencing the RNC's talking point about how just a shift of 77,000 or so votes out of over 50,000,000 would have given Republicans the House and only 3,000 in Montana or 7,000 in Virginia would have given them the Senate. John Kerry made a similar point in 2004 about a shift of 70,000 votes in Ohio.

People understand that the Senate vote was extremely close: a win in either of the two seats Republicans lost by less than .5% of the vote (Virginia and Montana) would have kept control of the Senate. But Republicans would be wise to drop the same argument about the House. Trying to rationalize a 29-seat loss in the House by cherry picking districts and then throwing around 77,000 votes strikes me as a pathetic rationalization by some who have not yet have come to grips with what happened last week. Instead of talking about how close the election was they should be focusing on why they lost 29 seats, 22 in districts President Bush carried by more than 5% two years ago.

He's right: losing is losing. The left has been fond of pointing out how "close" Bush's wins in 2000 and 2004 were, as if such closeness were somehow proof of the public's dislike of him and his policies. While I doubt that the left feels the same way about the closeness of the individual races in this year's midterms, we've come to expect that kind of inconsistency and hypocrisy from them. We should strive for more consistency and introspection among ourselves, though.

Besides, as "close" as many individual races were, there are two things to consider: (1) many of these losses were in right-leaning gerrymandered districts; and (2) not a single Democrat incumbent lost. There's just no rationalizing that, people.

Monday, November 13, 2006

UPDATED: FL Sen. Martinez to replace Mehlman as RNC Chief

Despite rumors that Michael Steele, the recently defeated black Republican Senate candidate from MD, would succeed Mehlman as GOP top dawg, CNN is reporting that Florida Senator Mel Martinez will be the replacement.

I have been incredibly unimpressed with Mel, especially on the amnesty-for-lawbreakers...er, immigrants...issue. Therefore, if this is true, perhaps something good can come of this. I am assuming that Martinez would step down as opposed to simultaneously serving as Senator and RNC chief. Since FL just elected a Republican governor in Charlie Crist, Crist would fill Martinez' seat with a Republican...possibly an actual right-of-center Republican.

Wouldn't it be freakin' hilarious if Crist replaced Martinez with Katherine Harris?

UPDATE: CNN has just removed the flashing news report, so either it's not official or they got it wrong. Stay tuned, and I'll update accordingly.

UPDATE #2: Story moved here (as of now anyway, 3:22 p.m. EST). Dammit, the story says that Martinez would not relinquish his Senate seat. GRRRRR!

UPDATE #3:Michelle Malkin reminds us that the RNC chief has to be elected by GOP state chairmen, and wonders if maybe they'll listen to their constituents THIS time? They haven't been listening to their constituents for years now, so why should this be any different? A Red State blogger calls Martinez "the Harriet Miers of RNC chairs"!

Selective outrage

Bush cracks a joke about getting Nancy Pelosi the contact info for interior decorators for her new Speaker office. The P.C. police at the Washington comPost (and beyond) get offended, and say it's sexist and demeaning to women.

Why, such a stereotyping and disparaging remark is almost as bad as, say, stereotyping and demeaning the troops as "idiots", huh?

Though she hasn't even moved into her new office yet, look for future examples of the MSM giving Pelosi and Co. the "Jim Webb - Cambodian boy" treatment.

Definition of insanity

Recall in my election postmortem that I believed it would be unlikely that the GOP would recapture the House in two years. Novak gives an indication as to why that is:

The depleted House Republican caucus, a minority in the next Congress, convenes at 8 a.m. in the Capitol Friday on the brink of committing an act of supreme irrationality. The House members blame their leadership for tasting the bitter dregs of defeat. Yet, the consensus so far is that, in secret ballot, they will re-elect some or all of those leaders.

In private conversation, Republican members of Congress blame Majority Leader John Boehner and Majority Whip Roy Blunt in no small part for their midterm election debacle. Yet, either Boehner, Blunt or both are expected to be returned to their leadership posts Friday. For good reason, the GOP often is called "the stupid party."...That is the view that led Republicans to earmark a "bridge to nowhere" and hundreds of other projects in competitive districts, hoping it would save them on Election Day. The House has been a place where Rep. Don Young (a notorious Alaska porker) was setting national transportation policy, where the "Cardinals" on the Appropriations Committee established earmarking records, where the pharmaceutical industry had a pipeline to party policy and where even Speaker Hastert was making personal profits on an earmark. Maybe that's what Republicans want to retain, even in the minority.

They say insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Be it insanity or stupidity, the indication is that the House GOP hasn't learned a damned thing.

Friday, November 10, 2006

Happy Veteran's Day

I'd like to wish everyone a happy Veteran's Day, and to express my deepest thanks to those fine people (or, as John Kerry calls them, "idiots") who "got stuck" defending this wonderful nation of ours. Thank you all!

"Universal jurisdiction"?

This is one of the biggest reasons that I reject the left's notion of "international law" and the need to be a part of this phoney kangaroo International Criminal Court. From Time:

Just days after his resignation, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is about to face more repercussions for his involvement in the troubled wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. New legal documents, to be filed next week with Germany's top prosecutor, will seek a criminal investigation and prosecution of Rumsfeld, along with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, former CIA director George Tenet and other senior U.S. civilian and military officers, for their alleged roles in abuses committed at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The plaintiffs in the case include 11 Iraqis who were prisoners at Abu Ghraib, as well as Mohammad al-Qahtani, a Saudi held at Guantanamo, whom the U.S. has identified as the so-called "20th hijacker" and a would-be participant in the 9/11 hijackings. As TIME first reported in June 2005, Qahtani underwent a "special interrogation plan," personally approved by Rumsfeld, which the U.S. says produced valuable intelligence. But to obtain it, according to the log of his interrogation and government reports, Qahtani was subjected to forced nudity, sexual humiliation, religious humiliation, prolonged stress positions, sleep deprivation and other controversial interrogation techniques.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs say that one of the witnesses who will testify on their behalf is former Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, the one-time commander of all U.S. military prisons in Iraq. Karpinski — who the lawyers say will be in Germany next week to publicly address her accusations in the case — has issued a written statement to accompany the legal filing, which says, in part: "It was clear the knowledge and responsibility [for what happened at Abu Ghraib] goes all the way to the top of the chain of command to the Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld ."

A spokesperson for the Pentagon told TIME there would be no comment since the case has not yet been filed.

Along with Rumsfeld, Gonzales and Tenet, the other defendants in the case are Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Stephen Cambone; former assistant attorney general Jay Bybee; former deputy assisant attorney general John Yoo; General Counsel for the Department of Defense William James Haynes II; and David S. Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff. Senior military officers named in the filing are General Ricardo Sanchez, the former top Army official in Iraq; Gen. Geoffrey Miller, the former commander of Guantanamo; senior Iraq commander, Major General Walter Wojdakowski; and Col. Thomas Pappas, the one-time head of military intelligence at Abu Ghraib.

Germany was chosen for the court filing because German law provides "universal jurisdiction" allowing for the prosecution of war crimes and related offenses that take place anywhere in the world. Indeed, a similar, but narrower, legal action was brought in Germany in 2004, which also sought the prosecution of Rumsfeld. The case provoked an angry response from Pentagon, and Rumsfeld himself was reportedly upset. Rumsfeld's spokesman at the time, Lawrence DiRita, called the case a "a big, big problem." U.S. officials made clear the case could adversely impact U.S.-Germany relations, and Rumsfeld indicated he would not attend a major security conference in Munich, where he was scheduled to be the keynote speaker, unless Germany disposed of the case. The day before the conference, a German prosecutor announced he would not pursue the matter, saying there was no indication that U.S. authorities and courts would not deal with allegations in the complaint.

Now ain't that a steamin' pile of bovine loaf? The motherfargin' 20th 9/11 hijacker is bitter that he was rendered uncomfy and humiliated...both of which seem preferable to an incinerating death, I would think!

While the left would be giddier than Barney Frank with a Chippendale strip-o-gram, normal Americans would undoubtedly be alarmed to think that another country can just grant itself "universal jurisdiction" over our public officials and circumvent our laws.

Michelle Malkin cautions us not to overreact, and it's good advice. As she notes:

The German government isn't filing the lawsuit. It's 11 Iraqis and a Saudi who went court-shopping and filed in Germany because the country "provides 'universal jurisdiction' allowing for the prosecution of war crimes and related offenses that take place anywhere in the world." A previous lawsuit was filed on similar grounds and was dismissed. Yes, Germany has its share of weasels. But German Chancellor Angela Merkel isn't one of them and outrage at the country is premature.

The case was dismissed, but it's not the point, is it?

Pretend for a moment that a foreign court said that they have laws prohibiting the poormouthing of their public officials, regardless of where in the world the poormouthing took place. If you poormouthed their prime minister from your home in America, and that foreign court sent a subpoeana from their country to this one, would you honor it? I'd tell them to go pound sand, and that MY laws allow me to poormouth whomever I damned well please.

If they can do this to Rummy and company, can't they do this to soldiers? But hey, nothing to worry about...it's not like the Euros dislike Americans or anything, right?

Thursday, November 09, 2006

Quote of the day

From the soon-to-be chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Charlie Rangel:

It’s not just committees — our influence within the House Democratic caucus will grow enormously,” Mr. Rangel said in an interview.

To that end, he sketched out an expansive federal agenda: Teaming up with Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg on gun control, passing new tax incentives for urban job programs, and redirecting federal money to New York in return for the outsize tax collections that the federal government makes here.

“Mississippi gets more than their fair share back in federal money, but who the hell wants to live in Mississippi?” Mr. Rangel said.

I don't know, Chuck...maybe people who ALREADY live in Mississippi, including fellow House Dem (and black) Gene Taylor? But hey, pretty safe to mock a state that stands as much of a chance of voting Dem as Keith Olbermann has in getting people to watch his TV show, right?

Rush: "I feel liberated"

Those of you who have been here for a while recall that earlier this year, I was hoping for a GOP defeat in the midterms because I felt they needed an attitude adjustment. They had strayed too far from their right-of-center platform (specifically on illegal immigration, spending, growth of government, etc.). I changed my mind when I saw that the opposition was actively rooting for our country's loss in the war on terror so they could obtain power.

In other words, I changed my mind because I thought that while the GOP was crappy at running the show, the Dems would be crappier. That should have been a campaign slogan for them: "Vote Republican, because while we DO suck, at least we suck a little less than the Democrats!" How sad is that, that we have to choose between dumb and dumber?

Well, the election is over and the GOP took the thumping they so richly deserved. Has their attitude been adjusted? Time will tell. However, the party has lost one of its loudest and strongest defenders. From the Godfather:

There hasn't been any ideology in the Republican Party, any conservatism, for at least two to maybe four years. You could argue Bush was more of an ideologue in the presidential campaign of '04, but in looking at what happened yesterday, it wasn't conservatism that lost. Conservatism won when it ran as a Democrat. It won in a number of places. Republicanism lost. RINO Republicans, country club blue-blood Republicans, this nonpartisan Republican identity, that's what went down in flames. I've always believed that those of us who are conservative believe in the ideology. We believe it wins. We believe it's best for the country. We believe it's best for the people. We believe it's ultimately compassionate, and it has not been present.......The way I feel is this: I feel liberated, and I'm going to tell you as plainly as I can why. I no longer am going to have to carry the water for people who I don't think deserve having their water carried. Now, you might say, "Well, why have you been doing it?" Because the stakes are high. Even though the Republican Party let us down, to me they represent a far better future for my beliefs and therefore the country's than the Democrat Party and liberalism does.

I believe my side is worthy of victory, and I believe it's much easier to reform things that are going wrong on my side from a position of strength. Now I'm liberated from having to constantly come in here every day and try to buck up a bunch of people who don't deserve it, to try to carry the water and make excuses for people who don't deserve it. I did not want to sit here and participate, willingly, in the victory of the libs, in the victory of the Democrat Party by sabotaging my own. But now with what has happened yesterday and today, it is an entirely liberating thing. If those in our party who are going to carry the day in the future -- both in Congress and the administration -- are going to choose a different path than what most of us believe, then that's liberating.

I disagree with Rush almost as often as I agree with him, but this is one of those times that I absolutely agree with him. While it's unfortunate that some very good GOP warriors (J.D. Hayworth, Michael Steele) were sent packing, they can thank their party for their defeat.

By the way, Rush thinks that the illegal alien amnesty plan will be implemented now. He's probably right. Think about it: the GOP Senate supported it, the prez supported it, and the only obstacle was the GOP House. Now that both the House AND Senate are Dem-controlled, the only obstacle has been removed. Gracias por nada, GOP!

Wednesday, November 08, 2006

Election postmortem

No spinning here, my friends. The GOP lost both chambers because of a variety of factors: illegal immigration, Iraq, federal spending, ethics problems, etc. Some of the damage was MSM-inflicted, as the MSM abandoned any pretense of objectivity and entered full-fledged campaign mode for the DNC. However, the overwhelming amount of the damage wasn't MSM-inflicted, but self-inflicted.

And yes, I said that they lost BOTH houses. While Montana is still counting as of now (7:15 a.m. EST), it will go for the Democrat, Jon Tester. Virginia brought a ton of votes from out of nowhere to put Webb in the lead by about 8,000 votes (as of 7:00 a.m.), and while Allen will likely request a recount, the fact is that recounts don't move votes in any direction more than at most 500 - 800.

All in all, my Senate prognostication about three weeks back was solid, in that I predicted 50-50. The only one where I was wrong was VA, where I honestly didn't expect Virginians to be depraved enough to give Webb the "Cambodian boy" treatment and reward a kiddie porn author with the Senate seat. But it is what it is, and Senator "Macaca the Jew" can forget about those Oval Office plans in '08.

So, was right-of-centerism slain? I don't think so, and neither does Malkin, for many of the same reasons that I noticed:

I'm hanging it up for the night, er, morning. Unlike Michael Moore in 2004, however, I will not be staying in bed for three days in a catatonic state. I will not need PEST shock therapy. I will not move to Australia....The GOP lost. Conservatism prevailed. "San Francisco values" may control the gavels in Congress, but they do not control America. Property rights initiatives limiting eminent domain won big. MCRI, the anti-racial preference measure (in Michigan - Ed.), passed resoundingly. Congressman Tom Tancredo, the GOP's leading warrior against illegal immigration--opposed by both the open-borders Left and the open-borders White House--won a fifth term handily. Gay marriage bans won approval in 3 states. And as of this writing, the oil tax initiative, Prop. 87--backed by deep-pocketed Hollywood libs, is trailing badly in California.

In other words, the message itself is still fine, but it needs competent and principled messengers...which have been sorely missing.

Consider, too, that the most vulnerable Republicans who ultimately did get beat were defeated by Democratic candidates who portrayed themselves as "conservative" or "moderate" Dems (with the exception of Ohio, where certifiable moonbat Sherrod Brown defeated the inept Mike DeWine). They have yet to cast a vote, so only time will tell whether or not they truly are not liberal. Kudos to Rahm Emmanuel for coming up with that winning strategy. I've frequently said that the way for Dems to win is by pretending not to be liberal, and ol' Rahm finally figured it out. So did liberalism finally win, or did Democrats win and liberalism didn't? You tell me.

I hate to rain on anyone's parade who may be thinking "Well, maybe two years in the wilderness will bring the party back to its roots!" Only two years? Considering that the GOP redrew districts in such a way as to purportedly favor themselves, and yet these districts went Democrat (again, purportedly semi-right-of-center Dems) who will benefit from incumbency in two years...what makes you think that this will only be two years? The Dems lost in 1994, and said "We learned our lesson! Give us our House & Senate back!" It took them 12 years to get them back. Yes, the GOP needed an attitude adjustment to get back to its roots, but it's naive to think this is a one-cycle attitude adjustment.

In three of the stranger developments:

The nutroots' biggest coup of the cycle was deposing Joe Lieberman in CT because he supported the war. Their savior, Ned Lamont, was then subsequently thrashed by Lieberman in the general election where Joe won as an Independent. How strange, that in an atmosphere of anti-Iraq sentiment, the most vocal anti-Iraq critic in CT was trounced by the pro-Iraq candidate, once the electorate (and not just CT nutbars) got their say-so.

As I watched CNN last night, they showed that Lincoln Chafee (RINO-RI) was liked by 62% of Rhode Islanders. It's incredibly rare that a politician with that kind of approval rating ends up getting beat. Chafee voted against Bush on Iraq, the tax cuts, and even voted against Bush in the 2004 election. However, in the end, R.I. didn't want to enable the Senate to remain in GOP hands, so they couldn't vote for the guy they liked.

In MO, the folks there were asked to vote on a measure to allow funding for embryonic stem-cell research, though the initiative was worded so vaguely as to imply that human cloning would be funded as well. The incumbent, Jim Talent, was against the initiative, while the challenger, Claire McCaskill, supported the initiative. The initiative failed...but so did the guy who voted with his statesmen!

Hey, at least we Floridians got it right in the governor's race, and Tennesseeans got it right in the Senate race. Two Senate race losers who we likely will see more of in the future are Harold Ford, Jr., in TN and Michael Steele in MD. They ran great races, but couldn't overcome their respective state's political makeup.

In the end, I did notice a few things: the sun still came up this morning; I'm still alive and gainfully employed; the Memphis Grizzlies lost yet another NBA game; and Jacksonville traffic still sucks. In other words, nothing has changed (yet) in day-to-day life, and life seems to be continuing after all.

Speaking of MSM liberal bias, the Washington comPost admits but two examples of it: "Yep, we're biased in our reporting of the MD and VA Senate races. Sucks for you, doesn't it?"

If the terrorists could vote, they'd vote for the Dems. They're praying to Allah that the Dems win and would take such a victory as proof that America is weak, thus emboldening them for further attacks (which they guarantee). Nice endorsement you got there, libs.

Speaking of terrorists, if you haven't done so, watch "Obsession", a documentary about radical Islam and the West's hesitancy to confront it. Link to abridged and unabridged clips here. Think about the prior comment (terrorists' desire for the Dhimmicrats' rule in America) after watching this to see what the stakes are in tomorrow's election.

Vanity Fair says that "neocons" are abandoning the GOP ship. Said "neocons" say that VF misrepresented their sentiments and intentionally contorted their words...in other words, VF lied.

Stinkin' Lincoln Chafee and Conrad Burns, left for dead, now tied with their Dem opponents?

If Dems win, it's because they won fairly and convincingly and that America is ready for some leftist leadership. If they lose, it can only be because they were cheated...again. As we all know, Dems never lose fairly. No, they're always robbed when they lose (thanks for THAT legacy, Mr. Gore)! So, they're sandbagging in advance, just in case.

John Kerry was joking...about his "apology"! Gotta give the devil his due, though...he is indeed a "uniter", as evidenced by the Army vs. Air Force football game (h/t Blackfive)!

Finally, this word: we can point to polls all we want to, and they certainly serve a purpose before the election. However, the fact of the matter is that there's only one poll that counts, and that's the one on Election Day.

Sunday, November 05, 2006

Page One of the NYT, but it ain't Kerry

Nary a peep about John Kerry's faux apology (that he now clearly didn't mean) on the front page...or anywhere...in the Old Gray Hag fishwrap. Nope, the front page was dedicated to the homo evangelist in Colorado.

Because this guy you never heard of is also an Evangelist you never heard of, and making anti-gay statements you never heard of, while having gay sex with dudes you definitely never heard of.

But it turns out he's a homo, so suddenly he's someone you're going to be hearing a lot about, and, in fact, will become within 24 hours The Most Important Figure On The Religious Right In All Of The History Of The Universe.

Thing is, the guy's not a conservative. Quite the contrary, he's a liberal global warming alarmist, on top of being a polesmoker. But hey, he believes in God, so he MUST be a conservative, right?

Quote of the day

In an interview from her Capitol office, Pelosi characterized Tuesday's vote as a referendum on the war, shrugged off President Bush's efforts to make her liberalism a national issue, described the current GOP leadership as a "freak show," and expressed confidence about her party's prospects to pick up the 15 seats it needs for a majority.

Considering that Pelosi is from San Fran-freakin'-cisco, it seems that if anyone would know what a freak show looks like, it would be her. A stroll down main street in her district would undoubtedly turn up a freak show or two...or a dozen.

We're now four days from election day. I'm not sure any of this stuff matters much anymore. I think Kerry, bless his stupid little gigolo heart, got his scandal in just before the deadline to have any effect on the election.

Correcting the Boston Globe

This is incorrect. Just off the top of my head, I can name several others in the Senate: Shrillary, Kennedrunk, Leaky Leahy, Babs Boxer, Kerry (who is rumored to have served in Vietnam)...et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

"Report: Flagstaff soldier killed self in protest"

This has got to be one of the more disgusting pieces of reporting outside of the NY Treason Times that I've seen in a while. You have the headline "Report: Flagstaff soldier killed self in protest", then you have the story...which gives no evidence that "protest" was a motive for the suicide! See for yourself:

A Flagstaff soldier who died in Iraq committed suicide after she refused to participate in interrogation techniques being practiced by her U.S. Army intelligence unit, according to a report about an Army investigation aired by a Flagstaff radio station.

U.S. Army Spc. Alyssa R. Peterson, 27, died Sept. 15, 2003, in Tel Afar, an Iraqi city of about 350,000 residents in the northern part of the country.

At the time, the U.S. Department of Defense listed her cause of death as a "noncombat weapons discharge."

Spc. Peterson's mother, Bobbi Peterson, reached at her home in northern Arizona, said she became aware of the KNAU report Wednesday. Neither she nor her husband Richard has received any official documents that contained information outlined in the KNAU report.

Until she and Richard have had an opportunity to read the documents, she said she is unable to comment.

Spc. Peterson had been assigned to C Company, 311th Military Intelligence Battalion, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), which is based in Fort Campbell, Ky. She was in Iraq as part of Operation Iraqi Freedon, functioning as an Arabic-speaking intelligence specialist.

On Tuesday, a KNAU Public Radio reporter, who had filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the reports of the criminal investigation into Peterson's death, aired a report that Peterson had committed suicide.

According to KNAU, an Army investigation found that Peterson had objected to interrogation techniques that were being used on prisoners.

"She refused to participate after only two nights working in the unit known as the cage," stated the KNAU report.

She was subsequently assigned to monitoring Iraqi guards at the base gate and was sent to suicide prevention training, stated the KNAU report. And on Sept. 15, Army investigators concluded she shot and killed herself with her service rifle, according to KNAU.

The KNAU report also stated that Army spokespeople for Peterson's unit refused to describe the interrogation techniques and that all records of the techniques have been destroyed.

The Peterson family told the Arizona Daily Sun in 2003 they did not want to know how she died beyond the Army's general classification of the death. They declined to discuss the matter further and asked the Daily Sun to respect the family's privacy. The Daily Sun agreed to the request.

Did you see anything that implied that she killed herself as a result of a "protest"? We are simply to believe that because she didn't like the interrogation techniques, she "protested" said techniques. I mean, did she say "I can't do this, and I don't like that we're doing it! I'll show you!"?

Could it be that maybe, just maybe...oh, I don't know...she had emotional or mental issues that caused her to take her own life? I mean, we see protesters on the news at various events, and I have YET to see one of those smelly unemployable miscreants who believed in their cause du jour enough to take themselves out!

Also, there's a logical fallacy known as "post hoc, ergo propter hoc", which means "after this, therefore because of it." I mean, the sentence is technically true in that the suicide occurred after her refusal. However, the implication is that there is a causal relationship. Here's an equally absurd example: "President Franklin D. Roosevelt died after the Titanic sank." FDR died in 1945, and the Titanic sank in 1912, but the implication is that FDR died as a result of the sinking. The same thing exists in this Peterson story, i.e. the implication is that the suicide is necessarily a result of the "protest" of the interrogation tactics.

Spc. Peterson's death is horrible and tragic, and I pray that her family finds strength to deal with the anguish they're experiencing right now. The last thing they or anyone else needs is crappy and distorted reporting like this!

"What the left really thinks about the military"

I have stated on numerous occasions that the left despises the military, and Jean-François Heinz-Kerry's recent slanderous comments serve to be just another exhibit in this mindset. Recent comments from members of my "harem" (inside joke for newcomers) prompted me to put this post up. This piece from Hot Air elaborates well on this phenomenon:

“But I think what we’re coming to grips with is the fact that we actually have a mercenary Army,” Clift said, according to a transcript of “The McLaughlin Group” program.

“And it doesn’t have a nice ring to it. We call it ‘volunteers,’ but we’re basically paying people to serve their country. And if you’re going to pay people and have a mercenary Army, you’re going to have to pay the market rate. And so the bounties are going up — more money for tuition, higher enlistment bonuses — and I think it’s appropriate.”

That’s Newsweek reporter and longtime lefty apologist Eleanor Clift, describing those who volunteer to serve in harm’s way as “mercenaries.” Traditionally, mercenaries are those who fight not for a flag or a country, but for the highest bidder. That cannot honestly be said of anyone in the US military. Believe me, most troops are aware that they’re not paid as much as the likes of Eleanor Clift. But they do their jobs anyway, because they believe it’s the right and honorable thing to do.

There’s more out there–Sen. Dick Durbin comparing our troops to Nazis, John Kerry himself comparing the Vietnam-era military to the army of Jenjis Khan and slamming today’s for terrorizing women and children in Iraq, etc etc etc. Find a smear of the military, and behind it stands a Democrat.

Here’s the truth: As Bill Clinton wrote of himself in trying to dodge the draft, most of the left loathes the military. Liberal elitists denigrate the military because they don’t appreciate its role in protecting us and see it as the one part of government they’re always willing to slash to the bone. Think about why that last part is true. Why are liberals always ready to cut the military and boost agencies like HUD? Why? Doesn’t that say something about their attitudes, principles and priorities? I’ve seen it myself, the wince on a liberal’s face when I mention I was once in the Air Force. It’s a reflexive mistrust and hatred, a hangover from the 60s for those like Kerry, and the pabulum that the younger ones have been fed from the cradle.

Kerry’s “joke” was a famously Kinsleyan gaffe–a moment when a politicial says what he really thinks. And that’s why his story keeps changing when he tries to explain it. He can’t just come out and say, outside the safe confines of a gathering of like-minded leftists, what he really, really thinks about the military.

I'm sorry, liberals, but as I repeatedly state, there's a reason that about 70% of the military votes Republican: they know you don't like them. Al Gore knew that, too, and that's why he dispatched a team of ambulance chasers to contest and disqualify overseas military ballots in Florida in 2000...all while piously calling on us to "count every vote." Plus, with the New Jersey Senate race this year being hotly contested, we now have a New Jersey...wait for it...Democrat who is trying to prevent overseas military personnel from casting balllots!

I'm sorry, but we're not going to let you run and hide from your shameful attitudes and history towards our soldiers! It's going to take you a couple of generations to undo that kind of damage to their perception, and judging by the leaders of your party today, I suspect it may take even longer than that.

NYT tries election-rigging again

Today's NY Times has an article that may not be interpreted as they would like, though they and their accomplices in the Drive-By Media will do their darnedest to try and force their interpretation. WARNING: The NY Freakin' Times of all people is about to feign outrage that potentially damaging national security information was publicly revealed, so put down your coffee cups or soda cans before reading the following excerpts:

Last March, the federal government set up a Web site to make public a vast archive of Iraqi documents captured during the war. The Bush administration did so under pressure from Congressional Republicans who said they hoped to “leverage the Internet” to find new evidence of the prewar dangers posed by Saddam Hussein. But in recent weeks, the site has posted some documents that weapons experts say are a danger themselves: detailed accounts of Iraq’s secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The documents, the experts say, constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb.

Last night, the government shut down the Web site after The New York Times asked about complaints from weapons experts and arms-control officials. A spokesman for the director of national intelligence said access to the site had been suspended “pending a review to ensure its content is appropriate for public viewing.”

Officials of the International Atomic Energy Agency, fearing that the information could help states like Iran develop nuclear arms, had privately protested last week to the American ambassador to the agency, according to European diplomats who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the issue’s sensitivity. One diplomat said the agency’s technical experts “were shocked” at the public disclosures.

Wow...the Bushies screwed up something badly, huh? Yeah, maybe. But then we get to this part:

Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990’s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.

WHAT!?!? As Jim Geraghty notes:

Is this sentence referring to 1990, before the Persian Gulf War? Or 2002, months before the invasion of Iraq? Because "Iraq is a year away from building a nuclear bomb" was supposed to be a myth, a lie that Bush used to trick us into war.

And yet here is the New York Times, saying that Iraq had a "how to manual" on how to build a nuclear bomb, and could have had a nuke in a year.

In other news, it's good to see that the New York Times is firmly against publicizing sensitive and classified information. Unless, of course, they're the ones doing it....Let's go back and clarify: IRAQ HAD NUCLEAR WEAPONS PLANS SO ADVANCED AND DETAILED THAT ANY COUNTRY COULD HAVE USED THEM.

I think the Times editors are counting on this being spun as a "Boy, did Bush screw up" meme; the problem is, to do it, they have to knock down the "there was no threat in Iraq" meme, once and for all. Because obviously, Saddam could have sold this information to anybody, any other state, or any well-funded terrorist group that had publicly pledged to kill millions of Americans and had expressed interest in nuclear arms. You know, like, oh... al-Qaeda.

The New York Times just tore the heart out of the antiwar argument, and they are apparently completely oblivous to it.

The antiwar crowd is going to have to argue that the information somehow wasn't dangerous in the hands of Saddam Hussein, but was dangerous posted on the Internet. It doesn't work. It can't be both no threat to America and yet also somehow a threat to America once it's in the hands of Iran. Game, set, and match....ONE LAST THOUGHT: So Iraq had all the know-how, all the plans, all the designs, "charts, diagrams, equations and lengthy narratives about bomb building." Unless they were keeping these documents around as future material for paper airplanes, all this stuff constituted a plan of action for some point in the future; but to complete creating these weapons, they would have needed stuff. I don't know an exact list of what they would have needed, but articles like this one give a good idea. Sounds like you need a firing mechanism (the right kind of firearm would suffice), some fairly common industrial equipment like a lathe, material for the bomb casing, some fairly common conventional explosives, all of which would have been easy to get in Iraq. Oh, and, of course, the nuclear material itself.

They would have needed something like... um... you know... what's that stuff called? Oh, that's right.

Yellowcake.

But we know Iraq would never make an effort to get yellowcake. Joe Wilson had tea with officials in Niger who said so.

It wasn't tea, Jim. It was "sweet mint tea"! Get it right, man!

Seriously, though...the Old Gray Hag fishwrap now has suddenly seen the light on sensitive national security information and is now suddenly shocked at publication of such contents! If you believe that, I've got some beachfront property in North Dakota to sell you.

At least a couple of honest Senate campaign commercials

By now, you're all probably sick of the campaign commercials and can't wait for the election to come and go so we don't have to put up with them anymore. These commercials are nothing more than "polishing a turd" by making a candidate look like something he/she may not be.

For example, here in Florida, our incumbent Democrat Senator Bill Nelson is running commercials where he looks polished and refined, proudly stating that "Floridians aren't looking for a Democrat or Republican solution. They're looking for solutions. That's why I have always worked hard to bring Democrats and Republicans together to get things done."

Huh? The guy is as partisan as they get: voting against the tax cuts that have jumpstarted the economy; voting to uphold every judicial filibuster (except for John Roberts and Miguel Estrada, the latter as a pandering move to Florida's Hispanic population); and a plethora of other partisan votes. Fortunately for Nelson, his opponent is the hapless Katherine Harris, so his re-election is a foregone conclusion.

Anyway, my point is that these commercials are invariably about making the candidate look better than he/she really is. Well, Time points out a couple of unique commercials, in that they're at least fairly honest...even if futile.

In other Senate races, two Republicans fighting to stay in the game are both up with ads acknowledging public frustration with Iraq:

-- In Washington state, Republican Mike McGavick, a wealthy former chief executive for a FORTUNE 500 insurance giant, is using the tag line "Real. Change." as he challenges freshman Sen. Maria Cantwell (D), who has supported the war. A new McGavick ad uses the President's former "stay the course" mantra as a slur on Cantwell and says: "President Bush doesn't understand our frustrations. It's time to be decisive. Beat the terrorists. Partition the country if we have to and get our troops home in victory. I'm Mike McGavick, and I approved this message.."

A Washington state Republican, turning the "stay the course" tables on Democrat Maria Cantwell? Slamming President Bush? No, I don't fault the guy, especially if he's speaking his mind and is sincere. That may not win him many friends on Capitol Hill, but polls show that he's likely not going to get there anyway.

Continuing:

--In Minnesota, three-term Rep. Mark Kennedy (R) is gaining ground on his opponent, prosecutor Amy Klobuchar (D), who has been up 15 or 20 points but is now up just 10 in a new Mason-Dixon Polling & Research poll for the St. Paul Pioneer Press and Minnesota Public Radio. Republican strategists say Kennedy gained ground with this fascinating ad, which tries to level with voters with perhaps the year's most memorable closers: "None of us like war. And we've made some mistakes in Iraq. We are facing an enemy that must be defeated. Leaving Iraq now will create a breeding ground for new attacks on America. That's the harsh reality. My opponent says the answer is diplomacy, but you can't negotiate with people who want to kill you. (Amen to that, sir! - Ed.) I'm Mark Kennedy; securing the peace is a lot harder than wishing for it; I approve this message even though I know it may not be what you want to hear."

You're right, Mark...it's not what Minnesotans want to hear. And it probably won't get you many extra votes, either. But kudos to you for being honest and straightforward about it, and for recognizing the nature of the enemy and the reality of Iraq. Too bad your state's citizens won't see it that way.

About Me

I am not conservative or Republican. I am a "neo-libertarian." It’s more logically consistent than conservatism and liberalism.
Liberals are not evil; however, their ideology has proven to be a demonstrable failure and incredibly harmful when administered on the body politic.
I have lived in the South all of my life. While I'd love to travel, I don't want to live anywhere else. Though I currently live near Jacksonville, FL, I call Memphis home (lived there most of my life). I'm a Florida State University Seminole, through and through.
All viewpoints are welcome on my blog. However, if I ban you or edit/delete your comments, it's because I found you to be offensive, repulsive, or otherwise useless. My world, my rules. Deal with it, or beat it.
Finally, I had a happy childhood, so my worldview has NOT been "warped" by a lousy upbringing. Quite the contrary: I have been blessed, and my outlook has been molded accordingly. I won't apologize for having grown up in a loving, middle-class family.